Editor’s Note: The following letter is in regards to the proposed Bearview shopping centre, which would be located on the south side of Highway 5 about 1.6 km east of the roundabout.
Editor, The Times:
Economic development is often denied in Clearwater by town council, this time on the recommendation of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District.
A development on Highway 5 has been proposed and many hours of committed time, effort and enormous expenses were incurred by the developer.
It turns out that, after years of trying to get this inspiring project launched, the District of Clearwater is not willing to change the OCP (Official Community Plan) to accommodate this project.
The OCP, which is a living document, has a procedure that allows one to apply for an amendment as long as you are willing to pay the fee to cover the cost for this amendment.
The developer is responsible to pay this fee, and it allows for change in a plan that is created by a committee of a few chosen members of our community, and that displays how they think our community should be laid out.
Anyone that would have a look at the OCP would quickly find that there is no specific layout as to how commercial and residential properties have been allocated to certain areas. The OCP is intended to be a guideline document, open for changes, hence the application process and fees to apply for such modifications.
After I applied, our council decided to deny my application following recommendations by the TNRD.
Our town councillors also went on to state that Clearwater has lots of commercial property available and also added that there is no desire to have a highway frontage strip mall, even though a large amount of highway commercial property is occupied.
One town councillor felt that Clearwater is already financially “stretched thin” and that this was not a good idea.
Once again, there is no cost to the DOC, quite the opposite. The property taxes would increase and this project would be a financial asset to the community, if it was to be commercially occupied.
There is property that is allotted commercial, but is used as residential.
One unanswered question that I have, as a taxpayer, is that I would like to know how many amendments have been approved – if any – and why this one is rejected?
The developer is accountable for the required infrastructure. A water main already runs through the property, hydro is accessible and sewer is right beside the property. Kinder Morgan has no objections and everything has been endorsed by utility providers and such.
In addition, the District of Clearwater is well aware that we have received 1,500 plus letters in support of this project, yet the DOC chose to deny the application.
There is no encouragement whatsoever for economic development in Clearwater. The DOC supports great ideas like a splash park, hiking trails and parks. But one wonders, how are these facilities going to be maintained once the town runs out of money, who will use these facilities then?
Financial growth is vital for a community. It also posts encouragement for businesses to move to our town, which in turn will result in a healthy economy. Isn’t our town’s slogan “We are open for business”? I only see evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, except for a chosen few, the DOC shows once again that personal agendas come before the – what would be – best interest of the town.
One town councillor said it best: “Maybe we should let the community make some decisions and not the committee, so the job can get done ….”
Ron Rotzetter
Bearview Development Inc.
Clearwater, B.C.
